Source – indianexpress.com<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate Harish Salve Friday requested the Supreme Court to treat the Ayodhya title suit as a \u201cproperty dispute\u201d underlining that the country had moved away from the events of 1992 when the Babri Masjid was brought down by Kar Sevaks.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis country has moved far away from the events of 1992 and we are left with a property dispute. Let\u2019s keep it to that,\u201d Salve told a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan.<\/p>\n
The bench was hearing appeals against the Allahabad High Court decision to split the 2.7 acres disputed land between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board. Salve was appearing for Gopal Singh Visharad, one of the petitioners in a civil suit filed in 1950.<\/p>\n
Opposing a plea by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who requested the court to send the entire Ayodhya matter to a five-judge Constitution bench in view of its importance, Salve said such decisions must be guided by \u201cconstitutionality and not sentiments.\u201d<\/p>\n
Issues like the \u201csensibility of the people\u2026what the small screen will say\u2026they have to be left outside the gate of this court,\u201d he said. Salve said the apex court had recently referred petitions challenging polygamy in the Muslim community to a Constitution bench as it raised questions of constitutionality. \u201c\u2026When there is a question of Constitutionality, it shall go to Constitution bench. That has been the rule.\u201d<\/p>\n
Appearing for two of the petitioners, M Siddiqui and another, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan had requested the court to refer the judgment in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case \u2013 in which it was held that \u201ca mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam\u201d and \u201caccordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India\u201d \u2013 to a Constitution bench.<\/p>\n
Dhavan had asked why the court had sent a plea challenging polygamy among Muslims to a Constitution bench as soon as it came up before it, but decided to hear him before taking a decision on his plea.<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate K Parasaran, representing Ram Lalla Virajman, has backed Salve and said Constitution benches were not devised to hear matters where evidence has to be appreciated.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is substantially a property matter though religious sentiments may also come in\u2026 This is not a fit case for sending to a Constitution bench,\u201d Parasaran said.<\/p>\n
Earlier, Ramachandran, who also represented Siddiqui and his co-petitioner, said the apex court had on several instances referred cases to the Constitution bench only because their importance.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe outcome of this case has a vital bearing on the social fabric of the country because two major communities are involved\u2026 It is indisputable that this dispute is a sui generis (a class by itself) dispute and very important in the life of the nation\u2026 (and) hence it is appropriate that a bench of five-judges hear the matter,\u201d Ramachandran said.<\/p>\n
Disputing Salve\u2019s submission, Ramachandran said, \u201cMatters which affect the constitutional ethos of the country can also be referred to a Constitution bench.\u201d The court will now hear the matter on May 15.<\/p>\n